The Key Lesson for Defense Teams

In Judge Hanna's Misconduct Ruling

Cleveland, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) Common Pleas Judge Harry Hanna recently sent shock waves through the asbestos bar by sanctioning the prominent California personal injury law firm of Brayton Purcell and its partner Christopher Andreas for fraud in the case of Harry Kananian who died in 2000 of mesothelioma.

Judge Hanna certainly deserves credit for agreeing with the defense team's motion to unseal the plaintiff's earlier compensation claims to use as them evidence in the trial, as well as for his decision to bar Brayton Purcell from his courtroom.  

 

However, the key lesson here is that more defense counsel should take steps to convince judges to investigate asbestos fraud.  The persistence of defendant Lorillard and defense counsel Shook Hardy, especially in light of the actions of other defendants who elected to settle rather than put up a strong defense, should be a wake-up call to defendants and counsel. 

 

This example should encourage others to aggressively pursue the admissibility of claims documentation and, if there are inconsistencies, push courts for greater discovery.  When plaintiffs are forced to prove claims, claims cannot always stand on their own, and any conduct similar to that of the Brayton firm will come to the surface.

 

Background on the Case

 

The dispute centered on perjury, false claims against bankruptcy trusts, and obstruction of discovery.  Brayton Purcell first claimed that raw asbestos in shipyards and factories caused their client’s mesothelioma. In a separate action later, the firm tried to pin the injury entirely upon Lorillard Tobacco Company’s Kent cigarettes, which for a short time in the early 1950s were sold with an asbestos filter.  However, when Judge Hanna ruled in favor of Lorillard's motion to show the jury evidence of plaintiff’s prior claims, Andreas disavowed these prior claims as being “the most leading information” he had ever seen.

 

Disturbed by Brayton Purcell’s about-face, Judge Hanna launched a lengthy inquiry into Brayton Purcell’s conduct.  The lawyers were deposed and the firm was compelled to turn over numerous internal e-mails.  The discovery prompted Lorillard’s counsel at Shook, Hardy & Bacon to allege in court papers that Brayton Purcell defrauded bankruptcy trusts, obstructed discovery, lied under oath, and lied to the court.  The court agreed. 

 

On January 18, 2007, Judge Hanna issued an opinion rebuking Andreas and Brayton Purcell for numerous ethical violations.  Judge Hanna concluded:  "The record before this Court indicates that Brayton Purcell institutionally and Christopher Andreas individually have failed to abide by our rules.  They have not conducted themselves with dignity.  They have not honestly discharged the duties of an attorney in this case.  Therefore, they have forfeited their privileges to practice before this Court."  In a later interview in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Judge remarked, “In my 45 years of practicing law, I never expected to see lawyers lie like this.”  He added:  “It was lies upon lies upon lies.”